RE: [OT] Interesting?
Dan Moyer wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Al Getz" <Xaxo at aol.com>
> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> Subject: RE: [OT] Interesting?
>
>
> > 1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html
> > >
> > >
> > Howdy,
> >
> >
> > THE SQUARE TRIANGLE
> >
> >
> > Now for something more serious (ha ha), here are some counter points...
> >
> <snip>>
> >
> >
> > You can probably use a triangular bit to drill a round hole, but
> > ever try to drill a triangular hole?
>
> Well, I've seen "drills" which can drill SQUARE holes, so I don't
> suppose it
> would be completely impossible to make a variant which could drill a
> triangular one! :)
>
> Dan Moyer
>
> ps. the "drill", mounted in a drill press, is actually an assemblege of
> a
> hollow NON-ROTATING square "pipe" with sharp edges at the bottom, with a
> regular drill INSIDE it, presumably sticking some distance down from the
> bottom of the hollow square pipe, such that the drill drills a round
> hole
> almost the size of the square, the pipe's sharp edges then chisels out
> the
> remaining wood as the drill is advanced through it. Might not work so
> well
> for a triangle, as there would be more wood left in the corners of a
> triangular hole than in the corners of a square one.
>
>
> <snip>
> > Take care for now,
> > Al
> >
> >
> > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> >
>
Hi Dan,
You can also drill three holes where the corners are to go,
then saw between holes, creating a triangular opening,
which is almost the same as drilling a triangular hole.
You could also drill rows of holes along the triangles sides.
It's not that you cant do it, it's just that it's MUCH harder
to accomplish 
One the more serious side, i've noted that bottles and
cans with square cross sections fit much nicer in a storage
space, such as a refridgerator. I dont know how much
harder it would be for manufacturers to use square cross section
containers though, because they dont roll when sitting on their
sides like circular cross section cans do. They pack really nice
though.
'Gravity' would hold them together really nice too, with no
wasted space in between at all. This would mean the loss per
cubic foot of shipping space would decrease, so you could fit
more of the same product on any given truck.
The density would increase, so this would make small packages
seem heavier.
Would the cost to ship a given amount of product decrease?
At first it wouldnt, because they go by weight, but after
a while when they find out they can ship more product with the
same truckload, there is a good chance that the cost per unit weight
might go down. It would probably depend on the ratio of fuel used
to other cost factors in determining new shipping costs, if in fact
they do change at all.
In any case, i really like the way square packages fit into
storage spaces, and find circular ones much harder to deal with.
I would imagine triangular packages would be somewhat of a
puzzle to fit together, unless they happen to be all the same size.
Take care for now,
Al
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
